In the wake of Gov. Gary Herbert’s veto of HB 363, known as the “abstinence-only bill,” and the successful rise of Moab’s Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP), I am writing to clarify key points regarding sexual health education. Most people are too busy to spend time back-checking studies cited by officials and media, so take it from someone whose job was to do just that.

Sexual health education programs are typically described as either abstinence-only or comprehensive. Comprehensive or “abstinence-based” programs encourage abstinence as the most effective way to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease, alongside teaching about contraception. Abstinence-only policies require teaching abstinence as the “expected standard” for youth to prevent pregnancy and disease, and do not address contraception.

Abstinence-only programs often describe the choice of engaging in sex before marriage as immoral, whereas programs on the comprehensive end of the spectrum tend to explain sexual behaviors in terms of their health risk and omit judgment for personal values.

To make things complicated, any given program or policy exists somewhere on the spectrum between these two descriptions. This is one reason why it’s been so challenging for the public to determine what works and what doesn’t.

1. No. The review found that abstinence programs consistently fail to delay the age of initiation of sex, hasten the return to abstinence, or reduce the number of sexual partners.

2. Yes. It concluded that most comprehensive programs have a long-lasting positive impact on teen sexual behaviors. Comprehensive programs can delay initiation of sex, reduce numbers of sexual partners, and increase condom and contraception use.

3. No. Absolutely no comprehensive programs were found to hasten the age of initiation or increase the frequency of sex. The author proposes this approach does not send a mixed message to youth, but is effective and realistic, particularly relevant in schools where teen pregnancy is visible to the students.

In further support of point No. 1, a federally authorized evaluation of abstinence-before-marriage Title V programs (Trenholm et al.), which received $50 million annually in federal funding for years, found that students who completed these programs were no more likely to remain abstinent as students from a control group. The two groups had similar numbers of sexual partners and students had initiated sex at the same mean age (14.9 years).

In the heat of Utah’s HB 363 debate, Gayle Ruzicka of the Utah Eagle Forum, cited a study that shows “abstinence-only is what works”. The study by Jemmot et al. did find that their “abstinence-only” intervention reduced the number of students initiating in sex compared to a control group. However, this intervention best fits our comprehensive definition, since instructors were allowed to teach “the efficacy of condoms”, were to refute “the view that condoms are ineffective,” and encouraged students to wait until they were “more prepared to handle the consequences of sex,” rather than marriage. These findings support the importance teaching contraception as part of comprehensive education.

A recent study by Stanger-Hall et al. was able to associate actual teen pregnancy rates with levels of the abstinence-comprehensive spectrum. The study rated state policies and law according to their emphasis on abstinence, and found that the more that abstinence was stressed, the higher the teen pregnancy rate. This remained true even after accounting for socioeconomics, education, ethnic composition, and family planning coverage, suggesting that the emphasis of abstinence is contributing to teen pregnancy.

Data such as these motivated the federal government to create the PREP grant, funding comprehensive education, and make clear that HB 363 would have put severe limitations on health education. However, the wording of current Utah law leaves little room for effectively communicating medically accurate methods of disease and pregnancy prevention to youth. Utah school health instruction must stress abstinence, but advocating for, or demonstrating the use of contraception is prohibited. Since there is a fine line between “teaching about” and “advocating for” contraception, educators are often uncomfortable mentioning contraception, especially since the law specifies that educators are even prohibited from answering spontaneous student questions in a way that may cross that line.

We do know that the curricula implemented by PREP fall under the effective forms of health education, and they are not allowed in Utah schools. I congratulate Utah for blocking a move towards potentially debilitating education policy, but there is still work to be done as we pursue an even healthier future for our youth. If you want to help; start locally, by supporting PREP Moab. Then, consider fighting for better Utah legislation.

Valerie Cotton is the former coordinator of the Personal Responsibility Education Program in Moab. She now works with the AmeriCorps National Civilian Conservation Corps in California.

We're glad to give readers a forum to express their points of view on issues important to this community. That forum is the “Letters to the Editor.” Letters to the editor may be submitted directly to The Times-Independent through this link and will be published in the print edition of the newspaper. All letters must be the original work of the letter writer – form letters will not be accepted. All letters must include the actual first and last name of the letter writer, the writer’s address, city and state and telephone number. Anonymous letters will not be accepted.

Letters may not exceed 400 words in length, must be regarding issues of general interest to the community, and may not include personal attacks, offensive language, ethnic or racial slurs, or attacks on personal or religious beliefs. Letters should focus on a single issue. Letters that proselytize or focus on theological debates will not be published. During political campaigns, The Times-Independent will not publish letters supporting or opposing any local candidate. Thank you letters are generally not accepted for publication unless the letter has a public purpose. Thank you letters dealing with private matters that compliment or complain about a business or individual will not be published. Nor will letters listing the names of individuals and/or businesses that supported a cause or event. Thank you letters about good Samaritan acts will be considered at the discretion of the newspaper.